Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (192449)	7/21/2006 10:48:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

PLO was not a state. They were not included in the resolution unless Lebanon asked to have them removed. More important by removing the PLO in 1982 Israel insured that another group(Hizbullah) would arise to fill the vacuum just as Hamas arose to fulfill the social vacuum created in Palestinian day to day life by the PLO and PLO corruption. No.. the PLO, like Hizbullah, was an organization that was acting as a state. The PLO was being promoted, and accepted by many countries, as a Palestinian "government in exile", which assigned them the status as a foreign entity. And they were conducting THEIR OWN FOREIGN POLICY versus Israel from Lebanese territory. They were the "guest" who wouldn't leave, and they Lebanon their own little battleground in their war against Israel. Israel has done little to promote peace in the occupied territories. The offers made to Arafat were not for a viable state but a balkanized state that no PLO leader could accept. The wall is certainly another example of a non-peace generating action. Had it been built inside the 1967 Israeli borders then one could claim(with right) that it is a security wall. Now it can only be called a wall to keep occupied territories within Israel's borders. While I'll there are elements within Israel that have attempted to thwart giving up the West Bank, or at least parts of it, the fact that Jordan abandoned the Palestinians to the fate of negotiating their own status with Israel means the Palestinians don't have the leverage to negotiate from a position of strength. They just don't have the right to claim the 1967 borders because those borders were between Jordan and Israel. Essentially, they have two paths they can walk.. Take the best deal they can get right now, leaving open the possibility of future negotiations, alleviate the concerns of the Israelis as to the security threat posed by a Palestinian state, and focus on their internal economic and social development.. or... They can continue to be PAWNS in a regional power game where corrupt Arab governments use the misery of the Palestinians as a convenient tool to deflect from internal dissent. They simply have so much more to gain, prosperity wise, by swallowing their pride and cutting a deal with the Israelis. But the Palestinian legacy to history is far more likely to be that "they never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". "22 years later Israel decides to cut its losses. Do you claim that Israel didn't create "An even more dangerous enemy (considering the quantity of rockets and their range)."? No.. those weapons didn't just pop up from nowhere. They were provided by other countries. Are you claiming that Hizbullah produced 12,000 rockets by themselves? As to the treaties with Egypt and Jordan they keep Israel out of those countries but not out of the occupied territories. As to the treaties with Egypt and Jordan they keep Israel out of those countries but not out of the occupied territories. Well... I guess that pretty sums up your perspective.. The Israelis are the ones who are trying to occupy the lands of their neighboring countries, but none of those neighbors are to blame for wishing utterly destroy Israel.. Nice objectivity there... Btw, the West Bank WAS part of Jordan in 1967. They lost it because they foolishly chose to attack Israel in that war. And they abandoned their claim in 1989, when the Intifada made it clear that it didn't make sense to fight Israel over a people bent upon independence. It would have been far nicer for the Jordanians to make peace with Israel, and then THEY could have granted the West Bank residents independence and state-hood. But maybe that would have caused a number of Jordanians, who are actually Palestinians, to question why they needed to be ruled by Foreigners (The Hashemites). Hawk Hawk